The government has "no plans" to bring in new laws governing when a women can legally have an abortion, Prime Minister David Cameron has said.

The PM spoke after Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt told the Times he personally favoured a move to halve the abortion limit from 24 weeks to 12.

Mr Cameron said Mr Hunt was "entitled to hold an individual view" but insisted it was not government policy.

The 24-week limit applies to England, Wales and Scotland.

Abortion is illegal in Northern Ireland except in exceptional medical circumstances, such as when the mother's health is at risk.

During a visit to the John Radcliffe hospital in Oxford, Mr Cameron said he "personally" favoured a "modest reduction" from the current limit of 24 weeks, "because I think there are some medical arguments for that". But he said he did not agree with the 12-week limit.

'Difficult question'

Mr Hunt told the paper: "My view is that 12 weeks is the right point for it."

The health secretary said he had reached the conclusion after studying the evidence, adding it was his personal view over what remains an "incredibly difficult question".

Responding to his comments, Home Secretary Theresa May told the BBC she "probably" backed a change to a 20-week limit but also said that that was a personal view.

Earlier this week Women's Minister Maria Miller told the Daily Telegraph she would vote to lower the abortion limit from 24 weeks to 20 weeks.

"The health secretary coming out in favour of reigniting this debate will galvanise the caucus that exists in Parliament, cross-party, on this issue," he said.

But Anthony Ozimic, from anti-abortion campaigners the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, said that any new backbench bill on the topic was certain to fail.

"There is a large pro-abortion majority in Parliament which will ensure that any time-limiting amendments are rejected while using the opportunity to push for pro-abortion amendments," he said.

"The real political debate about abortion in the UK should focus... on the right to life of all unborn children and on the way governments bankroll abortion access at home and abroad," Mr Ozimic added.

Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper, who speaks for Labour on women's issues, said the statements by Mr Hunt "show the health secretary has given no serious consideration to women's health".

She added: "Perhaps the most chilling part of his interview is the claim that 12 weeks is based on evidence when it undoubtedly is not."

Gynaecologist Professor Wendy Savage, a campaigner on women's rights, expressed concern over the possible re-opening of a debate which was defeated the last time it came to Parliament in 2008.

She said: "The number of abortions that take place over 20 weeks is very small. Of those a considerable proportion are of foetuses which have got a congenital abnormality.

"I think the majority of the population think that if somebody has got a foetus that, if born, will have a severe disability they should have the right to choose whether or not to continue with that pregnancy," she said.

Prof Savage added that ministers should be debating whether to decriminalise abortion altogether.

Elsewhere, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service's Clare Murphy said the remarks reflected "a lack of understanding of why women need later services".

There were nearly 190,000 abortions for women in England and Wales last year, 91% of which were carried out before the 13th week of pregnancy, according to Department of Health figures.

It's no use debating a moron; they drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.

Your claim of using a scientific equation is laughable when all you have done is butcher science to the point it makes 'The Core' look like a fucking documentary. Just because you have the attention span of a fruit fly doesn't mean the rest of us are so encumbered.

"As you know science is not fact"- HuskerJay"The Delta Fyler [sic] isn't even a shuttle craft" -HuskerJay69"The Dominion War wasn't really all that bad"- Admiral Mercury

The issue itself is too big a can of worms for me to comment on, what I'm intrigued/amused/worried about is the "Women's Minister" job title.

Seriosuly? We have a Women's Minister now? Do we have a corresponding Men's Minister in the interest of equality? What a farce!

"I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams" - Hamlet

"Bones' remedies for problems seems to revolve around giving his patients a prescription of heavy drugs, booze, or taking them to strip clubs. He is either insane, a drug addict, or the best damn Doctor in Starfleet!" - SFDebris

In the article, a view that abortion should be limited to 20 weeks is mentioned a lot. Is that the Conservative Party's position or do they not have an official one on the subject?

DC himself is quoted as saying he supported a reduction, but not to the extent of his health secretary, but I don't know what the official position is- the HS is wanting it reduced to just 12 weeks. DC claimed there was some 'medical evidence' to support a reduction- I for one want to know exactly what evidence he's referring to.

It's no use debating a moron; they drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.

Your claim of using a scientific equation is laughable when all you have done is butcher science to the point it makes 'The Core' look like a fucking documentary. Just because you have the attention span of a fruit fly doesn't mean the rest of us are so encumbered.

"As you know science is not fact"- HuskerJay"The Delta Fyler [sic] isn't even a shuttle craft" -HuskerJay69"The Dominion War wasn't really all that bad"- Admiral Mercury

Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06amPosts: 14566Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

There is plenty of evidence that identifiable brain functions exist starting somewhere from 4.5 - 5 months, so honestly I would favour a limit of 18 weeks without difficulty. It is quite possible to support abortion unrestricted by cause but restricted by time without opposing womens' rights.

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

EF, think: a population is divided into two equal-sized groups, and one has a disadvantage that is very important to society overall. If that group makes up half of all people, doesn't it make sense to have a small ministry responsible for looking into where the disadvantage comes from, and how to fix it?

We might, some time in the future, or in some other country, actually need a Men's Minister. I can't rule that out in the fullness of time. Right now it seems kind of pointless, though.

EF, think: a population is divided into two equal-sized groups, and one has a disadvantage that is very important to society overall. If that group makes up half of all people, doesn't it make sense to have a small ministry responsible for looking into where the disadvantage comes from, and how to fix it?

We might, some time in the future, or in some other country, actually need a Men's Minister. I can't rule that out in the fullness of time. Right now it seems kind of pointless, though.

True, I'll concede that. It was gut reaction to something that just sounds so...strange, especially after watching too much Yes, Minister of late.

"I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams" - Hamlet

"Bones' remedies for problems seems to revolve around giving his patients a prescription of heavy drugs, booze, or taking them to strip clubs. He is either insane, a drug addict, or the best damn Doctor in Starfleet!" - SFDebris

EF, think: a population is divided into two equal-sized groups, and one has a disadvantage that is very important to society overall. If that group makes up half of all people, doesn't it make sense to have a small ministry responsible for looking into where the disadvantage comes from, and how to fix it?

We might, some time in the future, or in some other country, actually need a Men's Minister. I can't rule that out in the fullness of time. Right now it seems kind of pointless, though.

True, I'll concede that. It was gut reaction to something that just sounds so...strange, especially after watching too much Yes, Minister of late.

Well, why not just a Minister for Equality instead of a Minister for Women and Equality? With, perhaps, an implicit but not legislated understanding that women and underrepresented minorities be preferred for the post? All of the ministers thus far have been white women, so the current situation seems somewhat problematic in that respect. I mean, the office itself doesn't have 'Women's' in its name.

Are you accusing me of not having a viable magnetic field? - Masaq' Hub, Look to Windward

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum